• Do you believe there will be another 'Great' War soon?
    59 replies, posted
There very well could be but it'll be nothing like the previous 2 wars, as others have said war would be faught with computers and concentrating on destroying each others infrastructure, There would be however many cases of rioting and civil unrest around the world quickly followed by food shortages and 'possibly' rolling blackouts. Nuclear weapons would be the least of our worries and although there may be an isolated case or 2 I don't think that they'll be a problem. For people like me and you, our number one concern will be food on the table, personal safety if you live in a large town or city, clean water and a reliable power supply. Source: I have done many, many long hours of research and simulations on the subject. edit to add: If a nuclear bomb were to go off in one of the major cities around the world there would be worldwide panic and unrest almost instantly with many billions of people around the world fleeing the cities with those remaining looting and rioting. It would be an 'almost' global apocalypse. On a more positive note if either of the 2 situations above or one similar did unfold I can promise that when we come out the other side there would be some major fundamental changes in the way the world/civilization works for the better.
[QUOTE=Dawcio510;44738757]Hey, if Putin knows that, then he also knows he would get fucked up by both EU and Murica Army, so declaring a war would be bad idea aswell.[/QUOTE] China is good allies with Russia. The fact is, it would be a giant mess resulting in the largest bloodshed in history (At least I think so)
China is the most populated country, so their army might be quite big. If it will result in a war and Russia will ask China for help, then it will surely be a long war.
Bye guys
[QUOTE=Dawcio510;44739281]China is the most populated country, so their army might be quite big. If it will result in a war and Russia will ask China for help, then it will surely be a long war.[/QUOTE] It's really fun seeing kids speculate about a war. You just don't go and simply "ask" a country for it's assitance in warfare. Being in a war costs more than peaceful trade these days, it's not the 19th century anymore. The only reason why the 1st world war started was because wars haven't changed (or atleast they thought so) to the point where they could have destroyed entire economies and nations (not so long ago they had the Franco-Prussian war, which led to an easy victory for Prussia and significant gains without a huge economic and diplomatic impact on the attacking nation) World war 2 happened for a really simple reason - world war 1, or the versailles treaty. The real great wars me might face will be regional at best (or worst)
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;44741226]Bye guys[/QUOTE] Oh my God he made a banme because the Great War is coming?
[QUOTE=Dawcio510;44739281]China is the most populated country, so their army might be quite big. If it will result in a war and Russia will ask China for help, then it will surely be a long war.[/QUOTE] Rarely in warfare do numbers alone matter.
Hey, even if EU and US have well trained military, Russia and China are the most populated countries.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;44737133]2014 is a good start date. Hopefully we don't see any Austrians getting killed.[/QUOTE] Hide your archdukes and lock up your serbs.
[QUOTE=Dawcio510;44744107]Hey, even if EU and US have well trained military, Russia and China are the most populated countries.[/QUOTE] Technology, strategy, and geography all trumps numbers. Numbers alone don't mean shit.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44750858]Technology, strategy, and geography all trumps numbers. Numbers alone don't mean shit.[/QUOTE] It depends on how you play them. Somebody consistently outnumbered in every engagement (and being forced to withdraw or lose as a result) will lose. In the end, bringing superior numbers against an enemy with inferior numbers is a large determinant of warfare. This can be achieved through clever maneuvers, so that a country with a tiny army can defeat a massive one. Numbers are very important, along with how you use them. Using skirmishing groups to weaken a force over time is such an example. Splitting up their army and setting your own (temporarily superior) forces on that one is another.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44750906]It depends on how you play them. Somebody consistently outnumbered in every engagement (and being forced to withdraw or lose as a result) will lose. In the end, bringing superior numbers against an enemy with inferior numbers is a large determinant of warfare. This can be achieved through clever maneuvers, so that a country with a tiny army can defeat a massive one. Numbers are very important, along with how you use them. Using skirmishing groups to weaken a force over time is such an example. Splitting up their army and setting your own (temporarily superior) forces on that one is another.[/QUOTE] ...thus why I listed strategy in that post :v:
[QUOTE=Magman77;44724857]If there is, it will be spectacular, and probably quite short.[/QUOTE] All countries with nukes spam press the shiny red button (while still lessoning non - nuke countries on how dangerous nukes are), causing a war and shortly after peace, as everything and everyone has been nuked to the ground.
I like to imagine a country's leadership would be smarter than to want to contribute to the total annihilation of the progress of mankind, but anything's possible I guess.
I wonder how the Internet will change if a war does occur? Will countries like the United States or entities like the European Union censor traffic and thus break the Internet into fragments, or will it survive unscathed? It would be pointless to block anything, though - if you want to move information, then you could easily do it without an Internet connection. Your average network administrator could give any politician a crash course on it, but then again, a politician's job is mostly doing unnecessary things.
I think the internet is going to be broken into segments regardless of whether or not a war is imminent.
[QUOTE=Magman77;44778945]I think the internet is going to be broken into segments regardless of whether or not a war is imminent.[/QUOTE] Why?
Because other nations are going to become tired of the internet being various surveillance organizations' pet metadata trawling projects.
[QUOTE=Magman77;44724857]If there is, it will be spectacular, and probably quite short.[/QUOTE] wow its like we're living in spring 1914 all over again
Yeah cause they had electronic warfare and front-door delivery service for city-scale destructive armaments in 1914, right?
Just because one has technology, does not mean a war will be short. Many believed WWI was going to be a short affair because of the technology involved, but that technology instead forced the war into what it was - trench based defensive war. Humanity is creative, if there's a will there's a way. And if people want to escape those new technologies they will. And i was commenting more on the attitude your post provided.
Ressource war: 2077.
If war were to break out around this time, it wouldn't be just a simple 'Allies vs Axis' two faction battle. Most likely, it would have two battle going at the same time, China & Allies vs Japan & Allies and Russia vs EU with the US in both.
[QUOTE=Angus725;44724960]Too much international trade for a WWII style war, but wont be surprised if there was a regional conflict in the next 20 years. Eg, China - Japan skirmishes, Russia - Small Russian neighbors, Middle East... etc[/QUOTE] That's what everyone said before WW2, they had a global economy and world trade back then too you know? The fact is that tensions are rising and certain patterns are being repeated, I don't want it to be true but I'm fairly certain we may be about to witness another World War, joining the military doesn't seem like such a smart career move now in hindsight.
With Putin becoming Hitler 2.0, this is a possibility, It can very easily become a world war due to the involvement of several countries.
I wish there was. Maybe it would finally bring about a conclusive ending this time, but I doubt it.
Not true, there's always gonna be an excuse to get in a war. If there isn't they'll make one up. [editline]12th June 2014[/editline] This explains the slow-fading abscence of 'world peace' jokes in the media since the end of the 90s.
Well then. [B]Iraqi PM orders troops to make stand in Samarra; U.S. sends aircraft carrier[/B] [URL="http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/14/world/meast/iraq-violence/"]http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/14/world/meast/iraq-violence/[/URL]
The bombs will drop in 2077.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.